Abuse Prevention Training Now Required for Youth Leaders

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not a social context though, so I'm not sure how the two scenarios are analogous.  Doctors ask children and youth questions would be very creepy and inappropriate to ask someone else's kids in a social context.  

Consider why a doctor asking about sexual activity could be appropriate: for the minor's health.

So why is it okay for a church to habitually require these interviews and questions for full participation? In a way, it is a social context, the church social one. It is the default mode in the church: you're born into it, you attend, get baptized at 8, more interviews at 12, and this is to be allowed to do the social activities of the community. 

 

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I did not. And I am not the only person who had these thoughts as a child. And btw, maybe you haven't been in primary with very inquisitive children? It can get pretty intense with their questions.

And it is not a "declare victory" statement. Adults in polite society simply don't do this, it is creepy, it is inappropriate: imagine asking someone else's kid in a social context if they live the law of chastity.

I was one of those inquisitive children that infuriated teachers by asking confusing and edge case questions to try to stump them.

It is not just a social context; it is a religious context. The Bishop in a weak and imperfect way is standing in for the Savior. And if you want to reply that the Savior would never ask tough or embarrassing questions of anyone I would invite you to read the scriptures a little.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If that is the case with the BSA training, I stand corrected. In that case, both organisations will hopefully improve as people get more accostomed to the learning.

 

 

Meadowchik is our local judge, jury, and executioner on what training is sufficient. Perhaps she will deign to share with the unwashed masses her extensive qualifications and nature of her years of experience in this area so we can better understand where the vast knowledge supporting her snap judgements comes from?

Edited August 20, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Consider why a doctor asking about sexual activity could be appropriate: for the minor's health.

So why is it okay for a church to habitually require these interviews and questions for full participation? In a way, it is a social context, the church social one. It is the default mode in the church: you're born into it, you attend, get baptized at 8, more interviews at 12, and this is to be allowed to do the social activities of the community. 

 

By this logic parents should not talk to their children about sex. After all it is a social context, the family one. It is the default mode in the family: you’re born into it, you spend time with them, get sent to school when you are of age, interact with parents and siblings, and if you do not follow the rules your activities are often curtailed. A parent has much more power and influence over a child then a bishop. Why are parents exempt from this logic?

Edited August 20, 2019 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Consider why a doctor asking about sexual activity could be appropriate: for the minor's health.

I totally agree.  My point was that some things are appropriate, even though they would be 'creepy' in a social situation.  Like how it can be appropriate for a doctor to ask personal questions for a minor's health, in my opinion, it can be appropriate for a bishop to ask personal questions for a minor's spiritual health as well.

Quote

So why is it okay for a church to habitually require these interviews and questions for full participation?

In my opinion it can be for the spiritual health of those involved.

Quote

In a way, it is a social context, the church social one.

If the church was a social club, then I would agree, but bishop interviews are not social. 

Quote

It is the default mode in the church: you're born into it, you attend, get baptized at 8, more interviews at 12, and this is to be allowed to do the social activities of the community.

Bishop interviews don't have anything to do with granted access to the social activities of the community though.  I'm the YWs president (which is just relevant because it explains where my experience comes from) and we have quite a few youth (member and non) who regularly participate in the social activities of the community without attending any bishop interviews. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

do not want to accuse you of lying but I admit I suspect it.

More likely if it didn’t happen (not saying it didn’t though it would in my experience be unusual), it is the constant rewriting of our memories where current ideas get imposed on older memories, etc.  No need to assume lying. Our memories are highly malleable. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

So why is it okay for a church to habitually require these interviews and questions for full participation?

Spiritual health.

add-on:  what bluebell said so well

Edited August 20, 2019 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Very respectfully and carefully, I didn’t see what you saw regarding an insult, kenngo.  While I don’t agree necessarily with a required third party, (I do think soundless video could be installed to protect everyone) , I do think the discussion of allowed(which is implemented) vs required is valid and not condescending at all.  But you see it differently-we must be considering different things?  

As though I don't understand the respective definitions and the difference between two common English words?  ("My interlocutors are stupid!" )  If that's what passes for good-faith dialogue in your world, I'll leave you to it.  Thanks.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I was one of those inquisitive children that infuriated teachers by asking confusing and edge case questions to try to stump them.

It is not just a social context; it is a religious context. The Bishop in a weak and imperfect way is standing in for the Savior. And if you want to reply that the Savior would never ask tough or embarrassing questions of anyone I would invite you to read the scriptures a little.

I was very inquisitive as well, so our my own children. My youngest, at age 7, would ask this frequently, "If God created everything, who created God?" But he was genuinely pondering the question. One of his older sisters, however, would try to stump her primary teacher like you and she did frustrate one in particular.

Anyways, yes, it is a social and religious context. Can you imagine the Savior asking a minor if they masturbate?

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Meadowchik is our local judge, jury, and executioner on what training is sufficient. Perhaps she will deign to share with the unwashed masses her extensive qualifications and nature of her years of experience in this area so we can better understand where the vast knowledge supporting her snap judgements comes from?

Is there a problem with me participating in a discussion about abuse prevention training in the church? You don't have to talk to me, Nehor.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

More likely if it didn’t happen (not saying it didn’t though it would in my experience be unusual), it is the constant rewriting of our memories where current ideas get imposed on older memories, etc.  No need to assume lying. Our memories are highly malleable. 

I don't think it is that unusual. I could message you a reddit thread on it if you're interested. The rhetoric around baptism is quite strong, and there is frequently an emphasis on being perfectly pure at that moment. And in Primary, for years the child has already been immersed in the concept of Heaven and going there with our families, contingent on accepting the gospel. It is simple math for a kid.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think it is that unusual. I could message you a reddit thread on it if you're interested. The rhetoric around baptism is quite strong, and there is frequently an emphasis on being perfectly pure at that moment. And in Primary, for years the child has already been immersed in the concept of Heaven and going there with our families, contingent on accepting the gospel. It is simple math for a kid.

I would like to hear it from 7 year old kids though who have not talked to their parents about that specifically as opposed to adults who are thinking back or parents who are interpreting what they think their kids mean.

I don't trust memory (any memory, not just religious memories) as being an accurate picture of the past.  It is just a picture of what we think of the past imo.

Kids can fixate on morbid ideas that are quite logical once they explain their reasoning, I have no doubt of that.  My three year old stopped holding our hands until we got out of him he was afraid his hands would pop off just as the hands of one of his toys (Tomy Popoids).  His toy had hands, feet just like his body, so it makes sense to assume if it was alike in one way it would be alike in other ways.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By this logic parents should not talk to their children about sex. After all it is a social context, the family one. It is the default mode in the family: you’re born into it, you spend time with them, get sent to school when you are of age, interact with parents and siblings, and if you do not follow the rules your activities are often curtailed. A parent has much more power and influence over a child then a bishop. Why are parents exempt from this logic?

I've specifically talked about the problem of adults questioning minors about their sexual experiences. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is not the same as an adult talking to a child about sex.  Children need to hear about sex, and how their bodies work. They need to know about what is safe and unsafe. They need to know about respecting their own bodies and others' bodies. They need to know about expecting respect from others.

Of course, parents educating their children about these things can help them develop in health with this information. 

I educate my children on these things. However, I have never asked any of my children if they masturbate, I do not ask an older child if she's kissed her boyfriend. I do not try to pry into their sexual experiences. If they have questions, I will answer and try to help them, but never as if I have a right to know their private, personal experience. I have not had to deal with children "playing doctor" with other children, but I would make it clear that crossing such a boundary is not okay. 

I have a teen who dates. We have house rules about conduct when her boyfriend visits. I am not naive enough to think that my rules alone can protect her from disease, unplanned pregnancy, or aggression. I do not assume that she just won't be sexually active just because she does not intend to be or does not want to be at the moment. So, we talk about these things. I do not probe or ask her if she has broken the law of chastity. What I do is try to help her be healthy and educated, try to be someone she can come to if she does need help, try to set firm boundaries to help her stay safe.

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

I totally agree.  My point was that some things are appropriate, even though they would be 'creepy' in a social situation.  Like how it can be appropriate for a doctor to ask personal questions for a minor's health, in my opinion, it can be appropriate for a bishop to ask personal questions for a minor's spiritual health as well.

In my opinion it can be for the spiritual health of those involved.

If the church was a social club, then I would agree, but bishop interviews are not social. 

Bishop interviews don't have anything to do with granted access to the social activities of the community though.  I'm the YWs president (which is just relevant because it explains where my experience comes from) and we have quite a few youth (member and non) who regularly participate in the social activities of the community without attending any bishop interviews. 

I can understand the perspective that it is about spiritual health. After all, we are taught as youngsters that our spiritual health depends on these things. I remember, as a middle child in a large family, feeling really special during interviews. A grown-up wanted to talk to me and thought I was important. That was pretty neat.

Bishop interviews are indeed social, but more than just that in the church, yes.

And while children can still participate at church, they cannot fully participate without these interviews. They cannot get baptised, which is a major social milestone when you grow up in the church. And now with more temples dotting the earth and current counsel, a youth is typically invited to participate in the temple trips once they're 12. Without the interviews, they cannot go to BYU, they cannot serve missions, they cannot marry in the temple. All of those milestones are social milestones as well as religious milestones in the church. The way the church is, they are intertwined together. One's social participation in the church is definitely impacted by being interviewed by a bishop or not.

Contrary to what Nehor has asserted, I claim no authoritative rights to say the should or should nots of the church's practice of bishop interviews. I don't think any of us do, that's not what this forum is about, is it? The purpose, imo, is to discuss these things, for whatever benefit that we personally derive or whatever benefit we want to contribute to the economy of ideas of the church community. I hope that the experience for all who participate in the church can be good. 

So, with that in mind, I think it is worthwhile to consider the situation a minor can be in, when they are passively or proactively following the norms of the church. What is our responsibility as adults, and what is the church's responsibility as an institution, to ensure that bishop interviews do not constitute an unwanted or unhealthily violation of a minor's privacy?

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I would like to hear it from 7 year old kids though who have not talked to their parents about that specifically as opposed to adults who are thinking back or parents who are interpreting what they think their kids mean.

I don't trust memory (any memory, not just religious memories) as being an accurate picture of the past.  It is just a picture of what we think of the past imo.

Kids can fixate on morbid ideas that are quite logical once they explain their reasoning, I have no doubt of that.  My three year old stopped holding our hands until we got out of him he was afraid his hands would pop off just as the hands of one of his toys (Tomy Popoids).  His toy had hands, feet just like his body, so it makes sense to assume if it was alike in one way it would be alike in other ways.

 

Right, kids can be morbid and think about plenty of things that would make adults cringe. Anyways, I hope you realise that the opportunity to "hear it from 7 year old kids though who have not talked to their parents about that specifically" is going to be rare if not impossible unless you are already close to a 7-year-old who will volunteer such information to you. I think the point is that it is not at all implausible. No one needs to rely on me, though I still maintain that I remember thinking those thoughts as a child, to realise that it is a likelihood that some children do the math. Some children feel that much pressure to be good that they consider the logical implications of the gospel, morbid as they may be. 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

they consider the logical implications of the gospel,

It is only logical if you don't know all of the story, so to speak....just as my son's logic was impeccable until one added the fact his body was built to not pop apart, unlike the popoids.

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is only logical if you don't know all of the story, so to speak....just as my son's logic was impeccable until one added the fact his body was built to not pop apart, unlike the popoids.

I'd say it's more logical to draw the morbid conclusion about death in this case. Some thought processes are unavoidable, I think. If my very young child tries to run into the road, I would take them into my arms, and then explain danger in terms they know. My child now know that they can get hurt. Of course, naturally we'd want our children to be aware of spiritual dangers, too. I think that the morbid thought process I describe regarding children and the Celestial kingdom is a result of fear-based instruction that has, to use the term Nehor introduced to the thread, diminishing returns for children (and adults) if it us not used very prudently. 

Something to ponder, perhaps.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Children need to hear about sex, and how their bodies work. They need to know about what is safe and unsafe.

I completely agree. They also need to learn what is moral and immoral when it comes to sex.

Primarily, this instruction should be imparted by parents, so all the Bishop should normally need to do is simply ask if they are living the law of chastity. Unfortunately, not all parents are great when it comes to educating their children about anything, let alone sensitive topics, and sometimes parents may actually disagree with the church's teachings regarding sexual purity. Accordingly, it may sometimes be necessary for a Bishop to provide more detail or have a more in-depth conversation that what would normally need to take place. That seems totally appropriate to me - though I know others feel differently.

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I can understand the perspective that it is about spiritual health. After all, we are taught as youngsters that our spiritual health depends on these things. I remember, as a middle child in a large family, feeling really special during interviews. A grown-up wanted to talk to me and thought I was important. That was pretty neat.

Bishop interviews are indeed social, but more than just that in the church, yes.

And while children can still participate at church, they cannot fully participate without these interviews. They cannot get baptised, which is a major social milestone when you grow up in the church. And now with more temples dotting the earth and current counsel, a youth is typically invited to participate in the temple trips once they're 12. Without the interviews, they cannot go to BYU, they cannot serve missions, they cannot marry in the temple. All of those milestones are social milestones as well as religious milestones in the church. The way the church is, they are intertwined together. One's social participation in the church is definitely impacted by being interviewed by a bishop or not.

Contrary to what Nehor has asserted, I claim no authoritative rights to say the should or should nots of the church's practice of bishop interviews. I don't think any of us do, that's not what this forum is about, is it? The purpose, imo, is to discuss these things, for whatever benefit that we personally derive or whatever benefit we want to contribute to the economy of ideas of the church community. I hope that the experience for all who participate in the church can be good. 

 

The bolded interviews have nothing to do with youth or children--they are only for adults--so I'm not sure how they are relevant to the discussion.

But I do understand what you are saying.  I think our disagreement comes from the idea that because bishop youth interviews are gates to participate in church ordinances, they can keep kids who don't do them from participating in the social aspects of the church.  I disagree that participating in the ordinances of the gospel are social milestones.  I know that some people can view them like that, but they are wrong to do so.  

And as I said before, we have a lot of youth who don't do bishop interviews and their social participation has not been negatively impacted.  The only thing that they can't do is go to the temple, but that has not impacted anything social for them because they don't want to go to the temple.  None of them believe the truth claims of the church.

Quote

So, with that in mind, I think it is worthwhile to consider the situation a minor can be in, when they are passively or proactively following the norms of the church. What is our responsibility as adults, and what is the church's responsibility as an institution, to ensure that bishop interviews do not constitute an unwanted or unhealthily violation of a minor's privacy?

It's definitely worthwhile and I really like the changes the church is making.  I think that our responsibility as adults is to stay close to the spirit, not trust someone with our children just because of the calling they have, and communicate with our children about everything.

[Tacenda]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I was very inquisitive as well, so our my own children. My youngest, at age 7, would ask this frequently, "If God created everything, who created God?" But he was genuinely pondering the question. One of his older sisters, however, would try to stump her primary teacher like you and she did frustrate one in particular.

Anyways, yes, it is a social and religious context. Can you imagine the Savior asking a minor if they masturbate?

Is there a problem with me participating in a discussion about abuse prevention training in the church? You don't have to talk to me, Nehor.

You're not alone, this newswoman mentioned it only took her 12 minutes: https://www.abc4.com/news/top-stories/a-look-inside-the-churchs-new-abuse-prevention-training-what-parents-and-professionals-are-saying/ Another thing they mentioned was where do people go if it's a leader that does the harm. My first thought was to the police, but an active believing member would probably have a hard time going to the police if it's their church leader. 

 

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I was very inquisitive as well, so our my own children. My youngest, at age 7, would ask this frequently, "If God created everything, who created God?" But he was genuinely pondering the question. One of his older sisters, however, would try to stump her primary teacher like you and she did frustrate one in particular.

Anyways, yes, it is a social and religious context. Can you imagine the Savior asking a minor if they masturbate?

Is there a problem with me participating in a discussion about abuse prevention training in the church? You don't have to talk to me, Nehor.

When called out for suggesting that bishops are always asking teens about masturbation it is explained that they ask about the law of chastity and only inquire if there is a problem or a question or the Spirit prompts them. Then you fall back on the idea that asking if they obey the Law of Chastity is somehow damaging.

Then a few posts later you run back to the assumption that everyone is asking about masturbation presumably because it has shock value. You can participate as you like but I am going to call out and correct your dishonest shock tactics and libelous insinuations about our bishops as well. If you have a problem with that you can stop responding to me.

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I've specifically talked about the problem of adults questioning minors about their sexual experiences. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is not the same as an adult talking to a child about sex.  Children need to hear about sex, and how their bodies work. They need to know about what is safe and unsafe. They need to know about respecting their own bodies and others' bodies. They need to know about expecting respect from others.

Of course, parents educating their children about these things can help them develop in health with this information. 

I educate my children on these things. However, I have never asked any of my children if they masturbate, I do not ask an older child if she's kissed her boyfriend. I do not try to pry into their sexual experiences. If they have questions, I will answer and try to help them, but never as if I have a right to know their private, personal experience. I have not had to deal with children "playing doctor" with other children, but I would make it clear that crossing such a boundary is not okay. 

I have a teen who dates. We have house rules about conduct when her boyfriend visits. I am not naive enough to think that my rules alone can protect her from disease, unplanned pregnancy, or aggression. I do not assume that she just won't be sexually active just because she does not intend to be or does not want to be at the moment. So, we talk about these things. I do not probe or ask her if she has broken the law of chastity. What I do is try to help her be healthy and educated, try to be someone she can come to if she does need help, try to set firm boundaries to help her stay safe.

That is your choice and I do not think it is a wise one but the bishop is going to ask if your child goes in for priesthood advancement or a temple recommend. It will though be the general question and not your masturbation inquiry strawman that you keep throwing out for shock value.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You're not alone, this newswoman mentioned it only took her 12 minutes: https://www.abc4.com/news/top-stories/a-look-inside-the-churchs-new-abuse-prevention-training-what-parents-and-professionals-are-saying/ Another thing they mentioned was where do people go if it's a leader that does the harm. My first thought was to the police, but an active believing member would probably have a hard time going to the police if it's their church leader. 

You suck it up and go to the police. How is that a hard question?

And thanks for the latest from your RSS feed of the exmormon reddit.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You suck it up and go to the police. How is that a hard question?

And thanks for the latest from your RSS feed of the exmormon reddit.

I googled and quickly c/p'd the link w/o realizing where it came from, sorry Nehor! Brain is not the sharpest in the scissor drawer, really stupid of me. It's what I do best, make quick posts. Hopefully Mods can delete it.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Tacenda

[MustardSeed]

As an aside, tacenda you are the best example of choosing not to bite back I think I have ever seen.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As an aside, tacenda you are the best example of choosing not to bite back I think I have ever seen.

Thanks for your comment MustardSeed!

Edited August 20, 2019 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

As an aside, tacenda you are the best example of choosing not to bite back I think I have ever seen.

I resent that. I did not bite. More of a nip or a nibble.